Portuguese Empire

Not with the Inquisition, which was more vicious and thorough at times than Spain's.

Oh really ? How more vicious ??

In the context of the OP, I said "at times." From research for my novel Rocamora, I learned the Portuguese Inquisition was consistently relentless toward those suspected of Judaizing. In fact, during the reigns of Philip III and Philip IV a flood of Portuguese of "suspicious origins" came to Madrid and other parts of Spain after the unification of the two kingdoms in 1580 and thrived while the Portuguese Inquisition burned members of their families. During the tenure of Inquisitor General Antonio de Sotomayor, 1632-1643, when there was no Auto Generale in Madrid after one ordered by his predecessor July 4th, 1632. Also, Philip IV's chief minister, 1622-43,the Count-Duke de Olivares did succeed in limiting many excesses of the Inquisition toward those suspected of Judaizing. Things did change after Sotomayor retired. The biographer of his successor Diego y Arce Reynoso claimed 15,000 new-Christian families left Spain during his tenure as IG.  In the 18th century the Portuguese Inquisition was still relentless towards suspected Judaizers while in Spain the victims were mostly those accused of sorcery, bigamy, blasphemy, heresy, and homosexuality. Both had equally active Inquisitions in the New World.The Portuguese Inquisition operated independent of Spain's.

So both the Portuguese and the Spanish Inquisitions were relentlessly chastising people of "suspicious origins", "haredims, moriscos, hags, adulterers, blasphemers, sodomites and heretics, etc."Why the Portuguese Inquisition was the worse ?

Yes, both were relentless, but as I mentioned in my post, there were periods when the Spanish Inquisition was more quiescent. I explained that as clear as I possibly can in my post. I am amused by your choice of the word hag, use of the arcane haredim and misapplication of the word chastising in the context of interrogation, torture, auto de fe and quemadero. Of course if English is not your first language, that is another matter. Also, continue to feel free to disagree, of course.

Yes, I was referring to those of Jewish origin specifically because from the fifteenth century when they were the main target of the Spanish and Portuguese Inquisitions, first religiously and then by “blood.” Descendants of conversos were viewed as new-Christians, 1/4 and 1/8 new-Christian and partial new-Christian, similar to the Negro Mulatto, Quadroon and Octaroon in old New Orleans. They were exclided from the military, government service, and the high Church. Forged limpiezas de sangre, certificates of blood purity untainted by Jew, Moor, or recent converts, were common during the era of the Inquisition. There is a clear line of Nazi-style bigotry against Jews from the moment the Visigoths of Iberia accepted Roman Trinitarianism to their ascendancy during the reconquista.Moriscos, descendants of forcibly converted Muslims, were ethnically cleansed, aka expelled, as you probably know for two, reasons in 1609: They had the potential to be allies of another Muslim invasion from North Africa and their birth rate far exceeded that of the Christians, especially after Castile was decimated by plague around 1600.By the way, Omer, what is your first language? And may I also ask why my first post seemed to annoy you? May I make an assumption from your name and "assume" you come from a Muslim background? Also, have you made a thorough study of Spain, Portugal and the Inquisition, or have I disturbed certain assumptions that we all often make through superficial reading of certain eras of History.Speaking of assumptions, despite my Celtic-Germanic name, I am not as you said Anglo-Saxon. My Jewish family comes from the pre-revolution Tsarist Empire, one side from the Polish-Prussian border region and Warsaw and other other from the Black sea, both sides emigrating to the USA before WWI. At least a half-dozen times in my life I have been mistaken for Iranian, including when I was very fit in the year 1959, for a bodyguard of the Shah when he was visiting San Francisco.

Yes, I was referring to those of Jewish origin specifically because from the fifteenth century when they were the main target of the Spanish and Portuguese Inquisitions, first religiously and then by "blood." Descendants of conversos were viewed as new-Christians, 1/4 and 1/8 new-Christian and partial new-Christian, similar to the Negro Mulatto, Quadroon and Octaroon in old New Orleans. They were exclided from the military, government service, and the high Church. Forged limpiezas de sangre, certificates of blood purity untainted by Jew, Moor, or recent converts, were common during the era of the Inquisition. There is a clear line of Nazi-style bigotry against Jews from the moment the Visigoths of Iberia accepted Roman Trinitarianism to their ascendancy during the reconquista.Moriscos, descendants of forcibly converted Muslims, were ethnically cleansed, aka expelled, as you probably know for two, reasons in 1609: They had the potential to be allies of another Muslim invasion from North Africa and their birth rate far exceeded that of the Christians, especially after Castile was decimated by plague around 1600.By the way, Omer, what is your first language? And may I also ask why my first post seemed to annoy you? May I make an assumption from your name and "assume" you come from a Muslim background? Also, have you made a thorough study of Spain, Portugal and the Inquisition, or have I disturbed certain assumptions that we all often make through superficial reading of certain eras of History.Speaking of assumptions, despite my Celtic-Germanic name, I am not as you said Anglo-Saxon. My Jewish family comes from the pre-revolution Tsarist Empire, one side from the Polish-Prussian border region and Warsaw and other other from the Black sea, both sides emigrating to the USA before WWI. At least a half-dozen times in my life I have been mistaken for Iranian, including when I was very fit in the year 1959, for a bodyguard of the Shah when he was visiting San Francisco.

My surprise comes from what seems to be different values or levels among the victims of the Inquisition.  According to what you wrote: the Portuguese were more vicious because they targeted one particular group: Judaizers ? I don't think that any Inquisition would be better or worse than another according to the identity of the victims. It's a bias !As well as when you qualify what happened against Jews since the Visigoths as " a clear line of Nazi-style bigotry against Jews"(sic).My second surprise comes from your interrogation about my pseudo Omer.  As you wrote, Omer can indeed be a muslim name (Omer, Ömer or Arabic: عمر‎, ʿUmar)It can also refer to Omer : עֹמֶר‎‎  a town (local council) in the South District of Israel, bordering Beersheba.And it can also refer to Omer aka Saint Audomar (died ca. 670 AD), better known as Saint Omer, who was a Burgundy-born bishop of Thérouanne, after whom nearby Saint-Omer in northern France was named.I wonder why you asked about my possible muslim background ? Your assumptions look like inquisitions...

A novelist isn't an historian : you can't qualify what happened in the past with what happened in present time; your”Nazi-like” term is biased and subjective.  You still avoid to answer about your "more vicious Portuguese"stance.You still didn't tell why you're so suspicious about my muslim backround ...

First you wonder about my english, then about my moslem name and finally you call me “academic snob” and paranoid … Out of two things, one : or good manners are vanishing, or you're not really a gentleman…Anyway, since you admitted to be biased and according to your contempt to provide evidence about your judgment on historical facts, therefore whatever you can write or think here is irrelevant.  8)